There's a song that I learned in church camp many years ago. The chorus goes "And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love. And they'll know we are Christians by our love".
~
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
At various points the author calls attention to the penalty incurred by those who refuse to accept any of the articles therein set down.
The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal
Who, then, is the author? The results of recent inquiry make it highly probable that the Creed first saw the light in the fourth century, during the life of the great Eastern patriarch, or shortly after his death
The "damnatory", or "minatory clauses", are the pronouncements contained in the symbol, of the penalties which follow the rejection of what is there proposed for our belief. It opens with one of them: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith". The same is expressed in the verses beginning: "Furthermore, it is necessary" etc., and "For the right Faith is" etc., and finally in the concluding verse: "This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved". Just as the Creed states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, so it asserts with equal plainness and precision what will happen to those who do not faithfully and steadfastly believe in these revealed truths..
From a dogmatic standpoint, the merely historical question of the authorship of the Creed, or of the time it made its appearance, is of secondary consideration. The fact alone that it is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals, is all we need to know.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06244b.htm
Martin V also ordered the Bishops of Porto and Alba to take steps against all Fraticelli "in the Roman province, the March of Ancona, the Duchy of Spoleto and other localities" (7 June, 1427). On 27 January of the same year, Martin V had permitted the Observants of Ancona to occupy the monastery of the Fraticelli at Castro l'Ermita as a first step in the campaign against the Fraticelli of that neighbourhood. On 1 June, 1428, he commanded theBishop of Ancona to enforce his rulings strictly in Maiolati, to put all suspects to the rack, destroy their village, separate the children from heretical parents, and disperse the elder population. A circular letter, which the Fraticelli addressed to all Christiandom, proved ineffectual and their doom was sealed. John of Capistranoand James of the March burned thirty-six of their establishments or dispersed the members and a number were burned at the stake at Florence and Fabriano, at the latter place in the presence of the pope. St. James of March, commissioned by Nicholas V to proceed against them (1449), wrote the famous "Dialogus contra Fraticellos", which he first published in 1452, making some additions to it later on. According to this the main establishments of the Fraticelli were situated in the valley of Jesi, at Maiolati, Poggio Cupo, Massaccia, and Mergo. They had also constituted bishops in other districts where there were a sufficient number of adherents. They made frequent journeys for propaganda purposes, especially in Tuscany. Some dressed partly as Minorites, some as hermits, often disguisingthemselves for the sake of protection. Their doctrine was a résumé of their former sectarian errors: the whole Roman Church had deserted the true Faith since the time of John XXII (1323); they alone constituted the true Church and retained the sacraments and the priesthood.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm (2nd paragraph from the top)
His vast correspondence shows that John XXII followed closely the political and religious movements in all countries, and sought on every possible occasion the advancement of ecclesiastical interests. Nor was he less insistent than his predecessors on the supreme influence of the papacy in political matters. For this reason he found himself involved in grievous disputes which lasted throughout the greater portion of his pontificate. Great difficulties were also raised for the pope by the controversies among the Franciscans, which Clement V had tried in vain to settle. A number of Franciscans, the so-called "Spirituals," or "Fraticelli," adherents of the most rigorous views, refused to submit to that pope's decision, and after the deaths of Clement V and Gonzalvez, General of the Minorites, they rebelled, especially in the South of France and in Italy, declaring that the pope had no power to dispense them from their rule, since this was nothing other than the Gospel. They then proceeded to drive the Conventuals from their houses, and take possession of the same, thereby causing scandal and much disorder. The new general, Michael of Cesena, appealed to John, who in 1317 ordered the refractory friars to submit to their superiors, and caused the doctrines and opinions of the Spirituals to be investigated. On 23 January, 1318, many of their doctrines were declared erroneous. Those who refused to yield were treated as heretics: many were burned at the stake, and some escaped to Sicily.
Church legislation on heresy
..
..
This legislation remained in force and with even greater severity in the kingdom formed by the victorious barbarian invaders on the ruins of the Roman Empire in the West. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IXagainst heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (seeROMAN CONGREGATIONS). The Congregation of the Index, instituted by St. Pius V, has for its province the care of faith and morals in literature; it proceeds against printed matter very much as the Holy Office proceeds against persons (see INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS). The present pope [1909], Pius X, has decreed the establishment in every diocese of a board of censors and of a vigilance committee whose functions are to find out and report on writings and persons tainted with the heresy of Modernism (Encyclical "Pascendi", 8 Sept., 1907). The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance. Even in countries where the cleavage between the spiritual and secular powers does not amount to hostility or complete severance, the death penalty, confiscation ofgoods, imprisonment, etc., are no longer inflicted on heretics. The spiritual penalties are of two kinds: latae and ferendae sententiae. The former are incurred by the mere fact of heresy, no judicial sentence being required; the latter are inflicted after trial by an ecclesiastical court, or by a bishop acting ex informata conscientia, that is, on his own certain knowledge, and dispensing with the usual procedure
In 1192 bishop Otto of Toul ordered all Waldenses to be delivered up in chains to the episcopal tribunal. In 1194 Alphonso II of Aragon ordered their banishment from his dominion and forbade them shelter or food. The Council of Genoa (1197) affirmed these provisions and ordered death by burning against the Church.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06796a.htm (3rd paragraph from the bottom)
Gregory IX was very severe towards heretics, who in those times were universally looked upon as traitors and punished accordingly. Upon the request of King Louis IX of France, he sent Cardinal Romanus as legate to assist the king in his crusade against the Albigenses. At the synod which the papal legate convened at Toulouse in November, 1229, it was decreed that all heretics and their abettors should be delivered to the nobles and magistrates for their due punishment, which, in case of obstinacy, was usually death. When in 1224 Frederick II ordered that heretics in Lombardy should be burnt at the stake, Gregory IX, who was then papal legate for Lombardy, approved and published the imperial law. During his enforced absence from Rome (1228-1231) the heretics remained unmolested and became very numerous in the city. In February, 1231, therefore, the pope enacted a law for Rome that heretics condemned by an ecclesiastical court should be delivered to the secular power to receive their "due punishment". This "due punishment" was death by fire for the obstinate and imprisonment for life for the penitent. In pursuance of this law a number of Patarini were arrested in Rome in 1231, the obstinate were burned at the stake, the others were imprisoned in theBenedictine monasteries of Monte Cassino and Cava (Ryccardus de S. Germano, ad annum 1231, in Mon. Germ. SS., XIX, 363).It must not be thought, however, that Gregory IX dealt more severely with heretics than other rulers did. Death by fire was the common punishment for heretics and traitors in those times. Up to the time of Gregory IX, the duty of searching out heretics belonged to the bishops in their respective dioceses. The so-called Monastic Inquisition was established by Gregory IX, who in his Bulls of 13, 20, and 22 April, 1233, appointed the Dominicans as the official inquisitors for all dioceses of France (Ripoil and Bremond, "Bullarium Ordinia Fratrum Praedicatorum", Rome, 1729, I, 47).
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14761a.htm (2nd paragraph from the bottom)
With regard to the toleration of Christian heretics and schismatics the reader will do well to consult the article INQUISITION. No very systematic measures of repression seem to have come into practice before the twelfth century. The aggressive attitude adopted in the case of the Priscillianists (q.v.) and Donatists was owing less to the action of the bishops than to that of the emperor. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that after the authority of the popes was firmly established, ecclesiastical campaigns were undertaken against the Cathari, the Waldenses, and Albigenses as well as later on against the followers of Wicklif andHus. Moreover isolated executions for heresy (burning at the stake being commonly employed for this purpose) were known before the twelfth century both in East and West; though at the same time the actual infliction of the punishment, then as after, must be regarded as an act of the civil power rather than that of any ecclesiastical tribunal. But though an Inquisition of heretical practices may be regarded as having been first formally set up, at any rate in embryo, about the second half of the thirteenth century no measures of extreme severity were in the beginning prescribed or generally adopted. The Fourth Council of Lateran in 1215 imposed as a penalty the deprivation of property and civil stakes. Convicted heretics even though repentant, were excluded from public offices and were compelled to wear a badge. If their retractation was insincere they were liable to be confined in a public prison. At the same time it must not be forgotten that all these medieval heresies, as such an historian as Gairdner has noticed (Lollardy, I, 46), struck at the foundations of social order. M. Guiraud's account of the extravagant teaching of the Cathari and Albigenses is conclusive upon the point. It cannot be doubted that the severities which then began to be exercised in the name of religion were prompted by no lust for blood. It seemed rather to orthodox churchmen that the Church was so menaced by these subversive doctrines that her very existence was at stake.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04259b.htm
(2nd paragraph from the bottom)
...From the beginning of the thirteenth century the German ecclesiastical authority, in union with the civil power, had proceeded vigorously against all heresies. The conflict in which Conrad had so large a share was waged according to the medieval views of public right and welfare. The first process in which he took part was that directed against Heinrich Minnike,Provost of Goslar. In 1224 after a trial that lasted two years, Minnike was declared guilty of heresy, delivered to the secular arm, and perished at the stake. In the following years Conrad preached with great vigour against the heretics and was warmly praised and encouraged to greater zeal by Gregory IX in a letter of 1227. The Archbishops of Trier and of Mainz both wrote to the pope in 1231 in praise of the extraordinary activity of Conrad and reported his triumphs over several heretical leaders. Thereupon Pope Gregory conferred on Conrad (11 October, 1231) the extensive authority of papal inquisitor, the first such officer appointed in Germany. At the same time the pope released Conrad from the obligation of following the ordinary canonical procedure (te a cognitionibus causarum habere volumus excusatum) and authorized him to proceed resolutely against heretics as he thought best, but with due observance of the papal decrees on the subject.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06105c.htm
The Medici
Lorenzo was succeeded by his son, Piero, but he did not long retain popularity, especially after he had ceded the fortresses of Pietra Santa and Pontremoli to Charles VIII of France, who entered Italy with the avowed purpose of overthrowing the Aragonese dominion in Naples. ...
.. The last had for chief the Dominican friar, Girolamo Savonarola of Ferrara, who hoped by their aid to restore in Florence piety and a Christian discipline of life, i.e. to establish in the city the Kingdom of Christ. In fact, Christ was publicly proclaimed Lord or Signore of Florence (Rex populi Florentini). (For the irreligious and rationalistic elements in the city at this period seeGUICCIARDINI and MACHIAVELLI). Savonarola's intemperate speeches were the occasion of his excommunication, and in 1498 he was publicly burned.The Arrabiatiwere then in power. In 1512 Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici purchased at a great price the support of the Spanish captain Cardona and sent him to Florence to demand the return of the Medici. Fearing worse evils the people consented, and Lorenzo II, son of Piero, was recalled as prince. Cardinal Giovanni, however, kept the reins of power in his own hands. As Leo X he sent thither Cardinal Giulio de' Medici (the natural son of Giuliano), afterwards Clement VII. The family had now reached the acme of its power and prestige. The sack of Rome (1527) and the misfortunes of Clement VII caused a third exile of the Medici. Ippolito andAlessandro, cousins of the pope, were driven out.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02616a.htm
The Bohemian Brethren are a link in a chain of sects beginning with Wyclif (1324-84) and coming down to the present day. The ideas of the Englishman found favour with Hus, and Bohemia proved a better soil for their growth than England. Both Wyclif and Hus were moved by a sincere desire to reform the Church of their times; both failed and, without intending it, became the fathers of new heretical bodies — the Lollards and the Hussites. The former were persecuted out of existence in England by Catholic rulers;the latter prospered in Bohemia, thanks to royal and national support.The burning of John Hus at the stake for his stubborn adherence to the condemned doctrines of Wyclif (at Constance, 6 July, 1415) was considered an insult to the faith of the Bohemian nation, which, since its first conversion to Christianity, had never swerved from the truth. The University of Prague came boldly forward to vindicate the man and his doctrines; the party which hitherto had worked at reforming the Church from within now rejected the Church's authority and became the Hussite sect. Divisions at once arose amongst its members. Some completely set aside the authority of the Church and admitted no other rule than the Bible;others only demanded Communion under both kinds for the laity and free preaching of the Gospel, with some minor reforms. The former, who met for worship at "Mount Tabor", were called Taborites; the latter received the name of Calixtines, i.e., the party of the Chalice. As long as they had a common enemy to fight they fought together under the leadership of that extraordinary man, John Trocznowski, known as Zizka (the one-eyed), and for fully fifteen years proved more than a match for the imperial armies and papal crusaders sent to crush them. Peace was at length obtained, not by force of arms, but by skilful negotiations which resulted in the "Compactata of Basle" (30 November, 1433). The compact was chiefly due to the concessions made by the Calixtine party; it found little or no favour with the Taborites. The discontent led to a feud which terminated at the Battle of Lippau (30 May, 1434) with the death of Procopius, the Taborite leader, and the almost total extinction of this party. The small remnant, too insignificant to play a role in politics, withdrew into private life, devoting all their energies to religion. In 1457 one section formed itself into a separate body under the name of the "Brethren's Union" (Unitas Fratrum), which is now generally spoken of as the Bohemian Brethren. Their contemporaries coined for them several opprobrious designations, such as Jamnici (cave-dwellers) and Pivnicnici (beerhouse men), Bunzlau Brethren, Picards (corrupted toPickarts), etc.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm
Hus meanwhile openly defended Wyclif, and this position he maintained especially against John Stokes, a licentiate of Cambridge, who had come to Prague and declared that in England Wyclif was regarded as a heretic. With no less vehemence Hus attacked the Bulls (9 September and 2 December 1411) in which John XXIII proclaimed indulgences to all who would supply funds for the crusade against Ladislaus of Naples. Both Hus and Jerome of Prague aroused the university and the populace against the papal commission which had been sent to announce the indulgences, and its members in consequence were treated with every sort of indignity. The report of these doings led the Roman authorities to take more vigorous action. Not only was the former excommunication against Hus reiterated, but his residence was placed under interdict. Finally the pope ordered Hus to be imprisoned and the Bethlehem chapel destroyed. The order was not obeyed, but Hus towards the end of 1412 left Prague and took refuge at Austi in the south. Here he wrote his principal work, "De ecclesiâ". As the king took no steps to carry out the papal edict, Hus was back again at Prague by the end of April, 1414, and posted on the walls of the Bethlehem Chapel his treatise "De sex erroribus". Out of this and the "De ecclesiâ" Gerson extracted a number of propositions which he submitted to Archbishop Konrad von Vechta (formerly Bishop of Olmütz) with a warning against their heretical character. In November following the Council of Constance assembled, and Hus, urged by King Sigismund, decided to appear before that body and give an account of his doctrine. At Constance he was tried, condemned, and burnt at the stake, 6 July, 1415. The same fate befell Jerome of Prague 30 May, 1416...For details see COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE.)
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm
In September, 1415, he abjured the forty-five propositions of Wyclif and the thirty of Hus, but did not regain his freedom, as his sincerity was suspected, and new charges were made against him. Finally, he was brought before the council, 23 May, 1416, one year after his arrest. This time he solemnly withdrew his abjuration as a sinful act and compelled by fear, and proclaimed Hus a holy and upright man. He was forthwith condemned as a heretic in the twenty-first session (30 May, 1416) and perished at the stake with no less courage than Hus. The humanist Poggio was an eyewitness of his death, and his letter to Leonardo of Arezzo, describing the scene, may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", VII, 280 sqq. The death of both Hus and Jerome of Prague affected strongly other humanists of the time; Æneas Sylvius (later Pius II) said that they went to their deaths as men invited to a banquet. The immediate consequences were grave enough, i.e. the long Utraquist wars. For an equitable criticism of the defects in the trials of both Hus and Jerome see Baudrillart in "Dict. de théol. cath.", II, 1216-17. (See also HUSSITES.)
antibiotic 